Maryland on lockdown?

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron


There is a large number of highly vocal Marylanders who are demanding that Hogan put MD on complete lockdown. Maryland so far has had 3 deaths - or what they call "Saturday Night" in Baltimore.

Do you think they are overreacting or should Hogan shut the state down?
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
My two cents, but not yet. So far it appears all three deaths were those with "underlying conditions" which group everyone said would be succeptable. When we hear that someone perfectly healthly has died from CV19, then it will be time to consider full lock down.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Randomly checking over the past week ....


at the start in MD 3 infected from an Egyptian Cruise , then the number was 11, then 33, then 89, this morning 190 now 244


:sshrug:
 

spclopr8tr

New Member
My two cents, but not yet. So far it appears all three deaths were those with "underlying conditions" which group everyone said would be succeptable. When we hear that someone perfectly healthly has died from CV19, then it will be time to consider full lock down.
Yes, because it is perfectly acceptable to allow old people to die. They are going to die eventually anyway. But for someone perfectly healthy to die, that would be a tragedy. 20% of all hospitalizations are for ages 20-44. 20% of deaths so far have been for people under age 65.
 

Monello

Smarter than the average bear
PREMO Member
at the start in MD 3 infected from an Egyptian Cruise , then the number was 11, then 33, then 89, this morning 190 now 244


:sshrug:
And out of the 244, some of them may have gotten sick and are now well. If you continually add to the number, it will always increase. This gives a false sense that it's getting worse over time. You(all of us) need to compare today's number of newly infected with yesterday's newly infected totals.
 
And out of the 244, some of them may have gotten sick and are now well. If you continually add to the number, it will always increase. This gives a false sense that it's getting worse over time. You(all of us) need to compare today's number of newly infected with yesterday's newly infected totals.
A great and current example is NY.
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

My two cents, but not yet. So far it appears all three deaths were those with "underlying conditions" which group everyone said would be succeptable. When we hear that someone perfectly healthly has died from CV19, then it will be time to consider full lock down.
It the same with the regular flu. The majority die because of "underlying conditions" or a compromised immune system. Also known as "flu related".
 
My two cents, but not yet. So far it appears all three deaths were those with "underlying conditions" which group everyone said would be succeptable. When we hear that someone perfectly healthly has died from CV19, then it will be time to consider full lock down.

Young people have died, just not in MD yet.

That doesn't seem like the best point to make a decision, whichever decision you're going to make. Younger people may not be dying, but they do often require hospitalization, which means a bed is in use that cannot be used for someone else, young or old.

On. a smaller scale - what if it were an intersection with a lot if accidents, and 3 older people died in crashes. Do you not decide to put up a traffic light until a younger person dies in a crash?
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
not being from Maryland i feel that I am more likely to get caught up in a drive by shooting than get Corona virus.

I am being very careful though because I don't want to spread it to someone that is vulnerable.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Young people have died, just not in MD yet.

Yes, but it's not 20% of all deaths. I want to see data that states perfectly healthy young people are dropping like flies from coronavirus.

Saying "young people have died" is like saying "women can be pedophiles too". Sure, it happens, but it's statistically insignificant.

Oh, wait, I forgot - no common sense allowed.

WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!! TODAY!!! :jameo: :cds:
 

Goldenhawk

Well-Known Member
So far, the infection rate continues to roughly follow a logarithmic rise. This includes today's 244 report. If it should continue, tomorrow's number will be around 310 (adding another 65 cases), Tuesday around 410 (adding another 100 cases).

It's still hard to say how much of the increase is due to increased testing, however. And the last two days were slightly below the projected rate of increase; that could be good news.

146502
 
Here, Vrai. I dug up the age breakdown for the US.

Here's the full breakdown of the initial coronavirus age data:
  • 0-19 years old: five percent of US coronavirus patients
  • 20-44 years old: 29 percent
  • 45-54 years old: 18 percent
  • 55-64 years old: 18 percent
  • 65-84 years old: 25 percent
  • 85 or older: six percent
and for those hospitalized:
0-19 years old: less than one percent of US coronavirus hospitalizations
  • 20-44: 20 percent of hospitalizations
  • 45-54: 18 percent of hospitalizations
  • 55-64: 17 percent of hospitalizations
  • 65-84: 26 percent of hospitalizations
  • 85 or older: nine percent of hospitalizations

 
Today's update: https://news.yahoo.com/fauci-u-looking-very-closely-161900234.html

Top U.S. health officials are "looking very closely at" reports that a much higher percentage of younger Americans are needing hospitalization as a result of contracting the novel coronavirus than expected, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Sunday.

Fauci was responding to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which, after studying more than 4,000 cases in the U.S., showed that about 40 percent of those who were hospitalized for the virus as of March 16 were between ages 20 and 54. Among the most critical cases, 12 percent of ICU admissions were among those ages 20 to 44 while 36 percent were for those between 45 and 64.
 
Top